:8ta*JJ APPLICATION OF THE Credit Valley Railway :poi^ RIGHT OF WAY AND CROSSINGS AT THE aXTlZr OF TOR/OlsTTO. Second Interviciv of the Ciailivay (Delegation with the ^Railway Committee of the (Privy Council. * Ottawa, Thursday, June 3rd, 1879. ^. :.;/;V: : ;. f; ^ *< SENATE REPORTERS. . - >• (J bb 0/4 1 1 < I B. Q. R. RAILWAY DELEGATION. The Credit Valley Railway Application before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. / «•* iDttawa, iChur$6ay, 3uly 3r6. The argument on the application of the Credit Valley Railway Co. for right of way over the Ordnance Land into the City of Toronto, and for crossing other lines, was resumed before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, to-day in the office of the Minister of Public Works. The following representatives of the various interests concerned were present : — Toronto City — Aid. Smith. Credit Valley Railway Co. — Hon. R. M. Wells, Hon. Wm. Macdougall, M.P., Robert Hay, M. P., Mr. Bailey, Chief Engineer; Mr. Ross, Superintendent of Con- struction. Grand Trunk Railway Co. — E. P. Haimaford, W. Cassels. Northern Railway Co. — D'Arcy Boulton, Hector Cameron, M. P., and Owen Jones. fiRKAT Western Railway Co. — Joseph Hohson, C. Stiff and Dr. Mi^Michaol. 55953 Toronto, Grey ^«" yourself represented, the - H r« llT f ^n , . "^^^ '^''"^'^ ^^ '"^ competition with the Gmnd Tr.mk Railway. Does " CompTnv f *"" """"'"''^ ^"^ ^'**^' *''^ ^"^^°" «^ *^"' <-^'-«^"<^ V»*»«y l^ailway " well wlT'\'"'f *^if- ?*^ ^*' ^"^^^^^^ nmy have cxi>onded on th. Esplanade.it is a " w!v W 1 r ' ""• "^^'"^ ^°" "'";'^ bepei^onally cognizant, that the Grand Tnmk Rail- " ^u}.^/f?\''^''^'^T^ •''°' ?^ T"^^' "^* «^^y '^ *^^ construction of works on the " thi F^r«;»>i '"^ Pl^'^^'^'^S them for many years pasi. The relations of the city to - and S^"!^"' ^^V-\*^? T^T^- companies who occupy it are all settled by agreement and in a manner which, I think, is perfectly intelligible. J 6 ^ '* It is not for me to enter into any controversy as to the right of the city to interfere " ^ce'^cre TTr^'''"'^*^ ^ '^"'^ ''"'^ "^'"'^ '''^''' ^^ ^^y '""'^ interference takes place because I believe your Company can acquire all the facilities and accommodations - rmlmX rr''"'^ 7f' ''"'"r' T ^"'"^ ^^'"^ «™^* ^"^ ^« considered reasonable, and ought by a reasonable people to be considered satisfactory. "I notice that you say in your letter that you cannot consent ' to sign or become " ' HnP nf Ih^r "^iTv n "^ o'm ""^"^^ 'letermine the rates of freight from points on the ^^ ^ hne of tho Credit Valley Railway westward to points eastward on the Grand Trunk - vn^. wS • A^^'l ^^"^ P°- '^^ ''''■ ^ ^'''^}^ '^'^^^""^ ^^ "^y ^^^^'' Pi-eviously addressed to you which indicates any intention or desire on my part to force you into any such arrangement ? Are you not simply, in writing in this way, setting up men of straw for " the pleasure of knockmg them downl ^ " As regards the working of the tmffic of this Company's stations at Toronto I can only say that It will be utterly impossible for us to provide accommodation in our stations where the work of your line could be done separately by a separate staff, and mdependent of the staff of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. " llninn Z!,r^\^Tu^'''^''^^TT^ ""'^^ T" ^^'' y^"'' P^^nger trains to run into the Union fetation it wil necessitate some change in our arrangements with the Toronto, u fwi, \ '"''^ ^^'^^''l ^TP^^y- Whilst there is, I believe, ample accommodation for the business of your line if it is worked in connection with th; Grand Trunk Railway ?. r?.^^ ^"^ '^' ?'''''i ^'''^^^ ^^^""^y «*^ff' I ^'" «"re there is not space enough " in which to set up independent establishments. ^ ° - 1 was careful to point out to you in my last letter that our employes would act a^ ; hey were m the service of the Company in all matters relating to' rates, charges and ^^ auangements appertaining purely to our own business, and I say now that we should not, an arrangement being made, desire in any way to interfere in these matters. " Such arningoments as I have imlicated respecting terminal accommo^lation atv not '* nov©'. They are fi-equeutly reaoi'ted to both iu this country and in Euro|)e. The '* business of the Grand Trunk Railway at Buffalo, for instance, is done in the depot of *• the New York Central Comimny, and is attended to by the employes of that Company. •' In a similar way the greater part of the work connected with our passenger business in " Detroit is attended to by the employes of the Michigan Central Company, and we are " not even allowed to run our own engines into that Company's de^iot. " We desire only friendly relations with the Credit Valley Company. If you force " another state of affairs upon us we will endeavor, of course, to protect our own interests, " and especially to guard our own property. You have sought to make an arrangement " with us, If our terms are not such as you think you can expect, it is not compulsory •' upon you to accept them. " You must concede that we have some right to a voice in the matter, especially " looking at the enormous sum of money which we ha\e had to expend in order to provide ** terminal facilities for the business of the Company in Toronto. " It will be no fault of the Grand Trunk Railway Company if .satisfactory arrange- " ments are not made and friendly relations do not exist in the future I>etween the two " Companies. *' I am. doai- Sir, *• Yours very truly, "J. HICKSON." Ilea Mr. AIKINS — Is that the letter which was read here before ? Mi. CASS ELS — No; it was written on the 2l8t of June, That has never hoen answered. p Hon. Mr. WELLS — I beg your pardon ; a letter was written in reply. I saw it. Mr. CASSELS— When ? Hon. Mr. WELLS — I saw the answer the day before yesterday. Mr. CASSELS — I was in Montreal yestei-da /, and Mr. Hickson had not received a reply up to that time. We being in possession and having paid for this land, they seeking to take it from us, and our workshops being upon it, one would have thought that the proposition should have come from the company which seeks to take the land from us. W« are prepared to meet them in the fairest possible way, but if they insist upon coming here we say they will have to get it through the Courts if they get it at all. From Bathurst Street to the Union Station, at all events, they cannot get right of way except by arrangement, unless the highest tribunal of the lend takes it away from us. Up to Bathurst Street there is plenty of land ; any amount of it. I made that statement when we v/ere here before, and it was conti*adictetl. ,■ :.;*■; 8 Mr. Mr. AIKINS— Is that south of tho 100 feet ? Mr. CASSELS— Ye8. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — That is private property. Mr. CASSELS — Of com-He it is, but they can get it, as other railway comimnies got right of way — under the Railway Act. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — Then the position you take is that you will not give them any- thing ? Mr. CASSELS — I do not say that, but if they come here to force us at the point of the bayonet to give up our property they must figlit for it. If they meet \is in a friendly way we are prepared to treat with them. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — It will be seen that this discussion is rather prema- ture. There was a special thing proposed to be done at our last meeting, and an adjoin-n- ment took place to enable it to be done. That was that an engineei*, on behalf of the Public Works Department, should visit Toronto and make a report upon the plan j)i*oposed by the Credit Valley Company as to its practicability and its effect upon or its relations with existing tracks, and to ascertain whether another line on the 100 feet from Queen Street to Bathurst Street was practicable. Mr. Shanly has, I presume, performed that duty, and, as I understand he is here with his report and maps, he might be asked to explain tliem. The regular mode of proceeding, it seems to me, is to take up the case where it was left at the last meeting, and proceed from that point. Mr. Cassels has introduced the old question that we discussed so much, as to comity or want of comity, the friendly or unfriendly relations between the companies, which, I submitted then, and now submit, is not a matter for the consideration of the Govemor-in Council. We come here claiming as a right the interference of the Government to grant us a right of way. We contend that the fee of this 100 feet is in the Crown. On that ground we ask — and we endeavor to show the reasonableness of our claim — the aid of the Government to get to Bathurst Street over this 100 feet. The Premier admitted so far as I can remember — and I think it is upon record — the expediency of considering that proposition, aad upon that they named an engineer to visit the spot and report upon it. I submit that the proper course will be to hear the report of the engineer. I have seen a map of the lines laid down, but I have not examined it with Mr. Wells, as representing the Credit Valley Company,- and I am anxious to see by what means Mr. Shanly proposes we shall reach our terminus in the city. If Mr. Cassels should say that his plan is not practicable, and if the Grand Trunk Company is ready to defy the Government as well aa our company, and drive us into the Courts, we will try our chances there. Perhaps we may go into a higher Court than any of those my learned friend has hinted at. •« Mr. CASSELS — The Minister of the Interior has jurisdiction over these lands, i they are Ordnance lands. When we were here two weeks ago Sir John Macdonald said that he had great doubt about the title, and that he thought the license would be of no value. Mr. Shanly's instructions were to report for the guidance of the Government alone. We are quite willing to hear his report, though it is not for out benefit in any way. Our contention is that until they get to a certain point the question to be decided rests with 9 the Minister of the Interior. I s\y it frankly, ami without disreapoct for t)*^ tribunal or any court, that we are confident we have a title to this land. Ho far as the functions of the Railway Committee are concerned, I have this to say : if the Minister of the Interior, in his discretion, determines against what he has heard from us and against the fact that there is room to the south of this 100 feet strip, and if he chooses to grant the Credit Valley Company a right of occupation, that will he litigated. Such a license of occupation confeis no title ; they must take that right at a risk. Until the Courts have determined that it is efficacious what is the use of discussing crossings which they may never ■to. ^ Hon. Mr. AIKINS — What I understood was this: when the Committee adjourned two weeks ago a certain point was supposed to have been reached. We understood from Mr. Cumberland that so far as the Northern Railway Company was concerne)ject to that." "Sir CHARLES TUPPER— Assuming that, you give them the means of getting to Bathurst Street which would enable them to reach the City of Toronto and get the bonus to pay their men with they would be w thout excuse, but if your position involves their also making arrangements with' the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Grand Trunk Railway say as a condition to this arrange- ment you must agree to do something that is impossible for yoii to do ; somctlnng ^that undor your arrangements you are unable to do— it is unreasonable. » * * » " Now it appears to me if the Grand Trunk Railway and the Northern Railway agree to the Credit VaUey Railway getting down to Bathurst Street, it w,ll remove all present ditliculties. " Mr. CASSELS— I think I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Hickson in which he states that to Bathurst Street there is no difficulty." ♦ » •« Mr. Hickson, acting for the Grand Trunk Railway, made certain suggestions. 12 It is idle to say that because these suggestions do not meet the approval of one railway they are immediately to take other proceedings. As far (.us Bathurst Street there is no trouble." * :|! # * # # # # « " Sir CHARLES TUPPER — We hope that by the day we meet you will have arranged among yourselves, and I really cannot see why you cannot do so. All difficulties will be removed to Brock Street, which is really the pressing matter ; then the Railway Committee will take up the ([uestion of crossings." # :;< # i;« * * -'fi * ij! '• Mr. CASSELS — All thx*ee lines are at one with regard to the track as far as Butluu-at Street." Mr. CAHSELS — That is a matter of arrangemont. Hon. Mr. WELLS — I have read Mr. Cusscls' statement on that occuhIoii, but lie takes a diflerent position now. Mr. CASSELS — If you will turn to pages 11 and 17 of the report you will find that I deny the jurisdiction of this body. I still contend that it is a matter of arrangement. There need be no trouble, and as you will find at page 45 of the report I then stated it was a matter of ari*angement. Hon. Mr. WELLS — It is true that Mr, Cassels denied the jurisdiction of this Court, and it is true that he said it was a matter of arrangement ; but what are the arrangements ? Mr. Cassels goes on to say there is no condition as to traffic. If there is no condition as to traffic, is it as to compensation 1 If that be the case we are perfectly willing to leave the amount or the manner of settlement to be determined by the gentlemen we are addressing; but I cannot, as I said at the beginning, understand Mr. Cassels when he so distinctly, and in such repeated terms, stated on the last occasion that down to Brock Street there was no difficulty at all, and now he speaks of appealing to a higher fonnn, and taking this matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Again, Mr. Cassels entirely misquotes what Sir John Macdonald said, and what I said with respect to the power of the Railway Committee to deal with the question of crossings before we acquired the land leading up to the point of interaection. He says we both conceded that. I say that we conceded nothing of the kind. The discussion which took place is reported at page 40 of the pamphlet, and is as follows : * " Mr. CASSELS — When would wo know your decision as to the (jucsstion of title ? We contend that the railway ought to he built to the point of intersection before a decision slionld be given regarding a crossing. " Hon. Mr. "WELLS— I think it .would be far more tcusilde to settle tlio crosbing \iiA. '* Mr. CASSELS — 1 do not apiiiehend from what I have seen of the correspondence, and from what I know of Mr. Hickson's views that there will be any difficulty at all. With regard to to the after progi'css of the road, when they get to the point of intersection it will be time enough to talk about it. "Hon. Mr. MAODOUGALL — We object to that very strongly, because until we know wIkic we are to cross we cannot go on constructing our line. 13 " Mr. CASSELS — There is no jurisdiction in thib Committee as to crossing until you get to the point of intersection, unless an Order-in- Council is made and acquiesced in, if there is to bo oue. " Sir JOHN MACDONALD— 1 take it that the Railway Committee would, on a scheme for c ossings, or a series of schemes for cro-ss in ^,8 Itirg Jaid Itfoie tlum, decide upon any length of line. There is a distinct proposition of the Minister of tie Interior that he would decide this question of crossings before we had acquired the right of way up to the point of in tersection. My own expressed view on that point is very distinct also. The tirst thing we have to decide now is the right of way to the 100 feet from Queen Street to Bathurat Street and unless Mr. Cassels recedes from what he was willing to accede to a fortnight a^o we will have no ditticulcy at all in agreeing upon the lino which Mr. Shanly has laid ilown. Mr CASSELS — My learned friend has quoted what 1 said, and what 1 still adhere to, but he has not quoted all my remarks. He has taken a few isolated sentences which do not convey my meaning. On M.-vge 11 of the report what I said was this : "They are here claiming that they have a legal right to take that land from us. They ask ' he Oovernment to give them that right. We take the ground ; first, that no such right can be granted by the Crown, and, secondly, that there is vacant land south of the 100 fe t strip ample to let them reach Bathurst Street. If they have a right, under the Railway Act, to take our lands, that is a matter f»r the Courts to deal with. There is no reason shown for thoir goinj? outside of their legal remedy." Tlien on page 1 7 of the report I said : " But they have chosen to come here, and we are forced to meet thpm on tlic legal nowition We are not going to be taken by the throat and compelled to give up our lands. We are not going to be coerced into doing what we think we are not legally bound to do. I take this position : that the Minister of the Interior has no jurisdiction over the matter at the present time ; that, even if he had, there are nice legal c^uestions to be raised. There is no reason whatever why, under the Act of last session or the Consolidated Statutes of 1866 and the Aci of 1868, the Credit Valley Railway Company- should nob fyle their plans, give notice that they will take those lands, and take possession of them by means of arbitration." But what Mr. Wells quoted from is this : I pointed out that, as a matter of ari'angement, I had no doubt arrangements could' be come to to the satisfaction of the Credit Valley Kailway Company if they chose to act in a business way, but, if they did not choose to meet us in that way, we would adhere to out legal rights. If the Minister of the Interior gives them that legal right we cannot help it, but I do not think that he can, or, if he could, thati t is reasonable that he^hould under the circumstances. 1 repeat that we are willing to meet them in a friendl^Hvay, and I do not think that it would bn reasonable for this Court to say that they should be granted what they demand until they found that they could not arrange with us. Mr. Cameron has read a letter from Mi-. Laidlaw. That letter contains a threat. Hon. Mr. WELLS—Nut at all. * Mr. CASSELS — He says, " We are going to take that land." I say, on behalf of the Grrand Trunk Railway Companj'^, that they are not going to take it unless we are willing to give it. If they choose to recede from the friendly negotiations, then the first 14 point that the Minister of the Interior must determine is whether he will exercise his jurisdiction. If he determines upon doing that, and gives a license of occupation, then the Railway Committee have to determine whether they will give crossings ; but I tell them frankly thiit until the road is built to Brock Street they cannot come here to ask for crossings. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have a patent for the land between Bathurst and Brock Streets, and it has been held by the Courts in Quebec that a Local Legislature cannot confer on a local railway power to cress or take the land of any other railway company. So tar as this is concerned they cannot take it and will not get it. Hon. Mr. WEIjLS — I will simply add to what I have said that the Grand Trunk Railway Company got an enlargement of two weeks because, as they said, they had not had time to examine the plans. How have tbey employed that time t No sooner did they roturn from Ottawa than they commenced packing tracks down on that block of laud as thick as sardines in a box in order to still further complicate matters. Mr. CASSELS — It is on our own land. Hon. Mr. WELLS — Yes, but I say it is a breach of faith with the Railway Com- mittee. They granted that enlargement for one purpose, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company have employed it for another purpose. I will not say what that purpose was, but it looked as if they had used it with a view of eml)arra88ing us still more. That does not look like meeting us Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL— In " a friendly spirit !" Hon. Mr. WELLS — No, it does not look like it, yet these are the j^eople who expect us to approach them with oflFera to compromise, Mr. CASSELS — We do not expect you to make any such offers. Hon. Mr. W^ELLS — Just one word with I'espect to the right of the Government to deed this land. All I can say is, if they have not the right, then they have no title to the Round House block. That is Ordnance property beyond all doubt. Mr. CASSELS — It was deeded by the Government before the Ordnance Act was I)assed. Hon. Mr. WELLS— It was deeded in 1864 to the City of Toronto. Mr. CASSELS — In 1837 the Roun(^|House Block was deeded by the Government. Hon. Mr. WELLS — I beg my friend's pardon, it was not, and I refer you to the plan. (Plan produced and examined.) That is a map prepared by Col. Bonycastle in 1837. At that time the land was reserved as Ordnance property. The right they have they got from the old Province of Canada. So that if the Government have no right to grant that now they have no title to the Ordnance property. Hon. Mr. POPE — What I understand from you is this : It seems so ftir as Mr. Cameron is .concerned, representing the Northern Railway, there are really no difficulties up to Brock Street. 15 Mr. CASSELS — Yes, these are for this reason : Mr. Cunil>erlaiid consents to a plan which leaves hie, own track intact, but involves the sliifting of our track. That cannot be done. Hon. Mr. POPE — Nothing beyond that] You hare made no arrangements with the Credit Valley Railway. i Mr. CASSELS — If Mr. Laidlaw will go to Montreal and meet Mr. Hickson, and enter into negotiations, I am sure that an understanding could be arrived at. Hon. Mr. POPE — What are the negotiations to be about ? Mr. CASSELS — 1 do not know, but if Mr. Laidlaw will show a di8))osition to nego- tiate, I am sure that ho^ will be met in a most friendly spirit ; but he says he will force us to give up our property. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — Are you in a position to state what the Grand Trunk R:iilway Company will do ? Mr. CASSELS — They are ready to consider any proposition from Mr. Laidlaw, and they have made a proposition. Mr. Laidlaw misreads Mr. H ickson's letter altogether. There are no traffic arrangements proposed on our side, and Mr. Laidlaw does not make any counter proposition. 1 1 will tell you one of the propositions that we have made. The Grand Trunk Company have an elevator just west of where the Credit Valley Railway Company intend to come in, and one of our propositions was to allow them to come to Bathurst Street, and to use that elevator and the Union Station free from any conditions, except that they should meet their share of the expenses. They did not answer that, or make any counter proposition, and we cannot deal with them. Hon. Mr. POPE — 1 understood Mr. Wells as representing the Credit Valley Rail- way Company said that they expected to pay for any privilege which they are granted. Mr. CASSELS — They expect to pay for this land if it is taken from us, because Sir John Macdonald stated on the last occasion when we were here that they could not hope to get it without paying for it. We say that it is our land and that they have no right to take it from us. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL— What land? Mr. CASSELS — From Queen Street to Brock Street and beyond. We say if we ai-e obliged to fight it out we will fight it to the end, and it will be years before they can succeed in taking it from us. If they are willing to treat we will meet them, as I have already stated, in the most friendly and liberal spirit. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — I understood you to say last time that the difficulty com- menced east of Bathurst Street ? Mr. CASSELS — The difficulty in the negotiations commenced ihere. Mr. Hickson says he will make one aiTangement from Queen Street eastward for the Credit Valley Railway, but he will not negotiate from Queen Street to Bathurst Street, making, that one arrangement, and leaving the Credit Valley Railway Company to force their way from that point through our property. But ho says if you will make one completed arrangement from Queen Street to your terminus there is no difficulty at all. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — The Credit Valley Railway Company are in this position as I understand it — they cannot get the bonus from the City of Toronto until they reach Bathurst Street. The Grand Trunk Railway say, *' unless you negotiate for the whole distance we will not negotiate at all." Mr. CASSELS — There is vacant land which they can take to the south of this hun- dred feet strip. "Why should they not take that 1 Hon. Mr. AIKINS — What other railway companies have talcen land there 1 Mr. CASSELS — They can do as other railways do. How did they locate their track west of Queen Street 1 They can get right of way under statutory power ; they can get through without the consent of any parties. If they want to treat with us we will treat with them, but we will not be bayoneted into it. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — I suppose Mr. Slianly has made a report. I liave not seen it. Mr. Shanly was blieu called u2)on for his report wliich he read as follows : "Toronto, 28th June, 1879. " To the CliMirman and Members Railway Committee, « Privy Council, Ottawa. " Gentlemen, ' " Credit Valley Railway, Toronto. *' In accordance with instructions received from your Committee on the 24th inst., I " have made a personal examination of the proposed alignment for the entrance of this " line into the city, and of the several crossings of the existing lines rendered necessary " for carrying it from Queen Street to Brock Street within tlie 100 feet limit reserved " for such purposes. " I have also held a consultation with the officei'S of the several railways interested, " when representatives from each were present, stated their views and produced plans " illustrative of them. " Having thoroughly, as I believe, exhausted the question and the different schemes *' proposed, I beg leave to report as having arrived at the following conclusions, the " question resolving itself into not more than three schemes, which I shall call Nor. « 1, 2 and 3. 17 " No. 1 comraencos at Queen Street and crosses the line of the Toronto, Grey & Bnice Railway, a short distance south from there, where it branches w the Queen's f" Wharf with three lines of rails, which, however, without interfering with existing arrangements, may be reduced to one. This crossing made, the 100 feet reserve will be entered upon, and the Credit Valley, * taking the southerly portion of it, will I" continue in that position until it reaches a point about 150 ' west of the Great Westtra Railway, where it and the Northern Railway cross each other. Here I propose that " the ' Credit Valley ' should cross the * Northern ' present single and proposed double " tracks, and from thence, keeping north of the ' Gi-eat Western ' and south of the " ♦ Grand Trunk ' tracks, reach IJathurst Street, leaving the ' Grer^t Western ' to i*emaiu " in its present position throughout, but necessitating the removal north of tlie ' Grand *' Trunk ' tracks of about 12 feet. Bathurst Street having been reached in this manner, *' the same arrangement of tracks would be continued to Brock Street, the * Grand " Trunk ' being still moved northward some 8" to 10" to admit of it. This shifting of " tracks will carry with it a necessity for some excavation of slope west of Bathurst " Street Bridge and a rearrangement of the north pier bent of that sti'ucture at a triflinij; " cost. Between Bathurst Street and Brock Street, with the exception of removing the " present ditch further north, no excavation would be required. The accompanying '* diagram will illustrate this, but an alteration of the Brock Street Bridge similar to " that at Bathurst Street will be required. " Brock Street being thus reached, on an independent line, it will be necessary for " the * Credit Valley ' to find its way to station accommodation, both passenger and " freight. For the former. Union Station will be the most convenient, and access there- " to, as far as I can now see, can be had only by an arrangement to use the track of the •' Grand Trunk ; for the latter the Credit Valley owns or leases a water frontage, lying " between the water works property and Simcoe Street, of about 600 feet. To reach this " a divergence of its line from Brock Street will be necessary keeping north of the Grand " Trunk round houses and of tlie old water works buildings and striking the water at the " westerly boundary of the lot referred to. By this arrangement, the Great Western " Railway track would be crossed at Brock Street, as well as two or three other side tracks *• of the Grand Trunk leading into the round houses, also tracks on Esplanade Street be- '* longing to the Northern and Grand Trunk Railways respectively, all existing at the time " the plans were registered with your Committee. Since then, however, the Grand Trunk " have laid down two or three other tracks, one north of the round house on the spot , " proposed here to be occupied by the * Credit Valley ' east of Brock Street, and one on " the vacant land east of the old Water Works, and north of Esplanade Street, all which " work has been done within a few hours of the present writing. In no case however, " would the crossing of this side track, or of as many now as could be laid down on tht3 " vacant space referred to, be attended with any inconvenience of consequence t j the " general traffic on the existing or projected lines. In taking up the question of align- " ment and crossings east of Brock Street. I am probably exeeeding my instructions ; " but, as I read them all crossings were to be reported on by me, though my business with the " alignment question would seem to cease at Brock Street. " The foregoing arrangement seems to me the most convenient that, under the cir- " cumstances, can be arrived at, and should be satisfactory to all parties. The whole " expense consequent upon the shifting of the tracks, platforms, and general arrangement " would, of course, fall upon the Credit Valley Railway Company, which would also have 18 " to ileal for iMinning powei*a, right of way, etc, from Brock Street east. Whilst feelinjt; " convinced that the alignment and crossings above described are such as will interfere " least with the rights of existing railways, and at the same time give to the Credit Valle\ " Bailway Company all the facilities and privileges it can fairly claim, I must refer " briefly to other propositions having the same object in view which have been brought to " my notice. ** No. 2 — From Queen Street to near Bathurst Street would be identical with No. " 1, but it would here cross the line of Lho Great V^esU-rn Railway', ^'^eeping south of it, " then^j to Bathurst Street in a direct parallel line. In doing this it would encroach (a " double track being proposed) about fifteen feat ou the enclosed ground occupied by the " Northern Railway Company, and continue (so from thei'e to Brock Street, where it " would fall into the arrangements proposed for No 1. " I have given this proposition a very complete consideration, and from a close " examination and measurement of the ground must pronounce it to be, in my opinion, " entirely inadmissable. The loss of this small strip of ground to the Northern Railway " between Bathurst Street and Brock Street would be of little or no consequence to its " traffic arrangements or to its * shunting ' and * lying by ' facilities, but the entrance " to the grounds for about 250 feet west of Bathurst Street could not aflFord to be " curtailed by a single foot without interfering most seriously with its main line, which, " together with the double track and necessary sidings at this point, has only a space of " less than forty feet width — no more than is required for the efficient working of its " traffic. I have, therefore, in treating of the arrangement of the Credit Valley Com- " pany, put this proposition entirely on one side. *• No. 3. — It has been argued by the Grand Trunk Railway Company that having " laid down its second, or south track, from Queen Street to Brock Street, the Credit •* Valley Railroad might, under ari'angement with it, use the second trax;k and so run " into the Union Station. The Grand Trunk Railway does not, however, press the " question of the joint use between Queen Street and Bathurst Street, but from this last " point to Brock Street strongly urges it, objecting to the Credit Valley Railway laying " an independent line of rails, chiefly on the grounds that it would necessitate the removal " northward of its (Grand Trunk Railway) tracks, and decreasing the space between them " from about ten feet to eight feet. I fail to see the force of this objection, as a space of " eight feet is considered ample in Detroit, Chicago and other crowded railway centres. " whilst the New York Central at cny of its city termini is content with seven feet, and •* even six feet five inches. *' As before remarked, for passenger traffic the joint use of the Grand Trunk Railway " track from Bathurst Street to Brock Street would not be objectionable, especially in '* view of such joint use becoming a necessity from Brock Street to the Union Station ; " but for freight traffic seeking the Credit Valley Railway water frontage such joint use " would be a constant source of inconvenience, delay and possible injury. Upon these " grounds, if upon no other, I would advocate the adoption of the independent line from •' Queen to Bathurst, Brock and the water, with running rights over the Grand Trunk " Railway from Brock to the Union Station as laid down on the plan herewith. " As regards the Toronto, Grey & Bruce Railway as an existing line I should perhaps '* add in the probable event, not very far distant, of its desiring an independent track into 19 " the city from Queen Street, that in recommending the adoption of No. 1 I Imve not lost ' sight of any rights it may lay claim to for space on the hundred feet reservation. " Assuming, therefore, that No. I l)e adopted, and that no change be made in the ' existing lines, the crossings required are as follows : " Toronto, Grey & Bruce Railway branch to Queen's Wharf, three. ** Northern Railway, near Bathurst Street, two. " Great Western Railway at Brock Street, one. " Northern Railway main line on Esplanade Street, one, and probably bix side ** tracks, of which only four are main running lines, " I think I have touched upon all the points ]>earing on the matter in question, and • trust that 1 have made myself understood. " I am gentlemen, " Your obedient servant, " F. SHANLY." Mr. BE ATT Y — In the absence of the Minister of the Interior I beg to submit the following application ; " The Toronto, Guey & Bruce Railway, " General Manager's Office, " Toronto, 28th June, 1879. '• Sir John A. Macdonaid, K. C. B. &c., '* Minister of the Interior for th(^ " Dominion of Canada. •' Sir. •> " 1. I have the honor to send you herewith a plan shewing the proposed route of " the Toronto, Grey & Bruce Railway in the City of Toronto, between Queen Street and "^ Brock Stx'eet, through what is now known as the 100 feet width of the Ordnance pro- '* perty between Queen and Bathui-st Streets and the * Railway Resei-ve* between Eath- '* urst and Brock Streets. " 2. I lay this matter before you at the present time owing to the application of the '• Credit Valley Railway Company for space for a donhle track right of way over the " Haiue i>ro}ierty, which has forced this company to take thin position at a rather earlier " date than would otherwise have been necessary, there being now only I'oom for two *' tracks, of whicli two we claim to be entitled to space for one. " 3. In order to the con-ect underatanding of the position of the Toronto, iirey oen a lenant of .the Grand Trunk Company, has been and is pail ocQupiens of the 100 '' feet of land and of the Railway Reserve and there has been heretofore no necessity for " it to make any application of this nature. It claims that the Grand Trunk Company " has authority to grant a lease or make an agreement with it for either a continuance of " running powers over its own track or the right to lay a new track on that part of th(^ •'100 feet of land and the Railway Resei-ve which has been handed over by the Northern " Railway Company to the Grand Trunk Company. " 7. It is stated that the agreement in question between the Grand Trunk and " the Northern Railway Companies grants to the Gi'and Trunk Company the right to all •' the land on the 100 feet south of the Grand Trunk track lying west of what is known as " the Diamond Crossing, and the right to all the land on the 100 feet mn'th of the Grand *• Trunk track l^ing east of the Diamond Crossing and between it and Brock Street. 8. ** This company, therefore, jn-oposes to lay an independent line of rails, west of the ** Diamond Crossing, immediately to the south of and adjoining the southerly track of the " Grand Trunk Railway, and after crossing the Northern and Gi'and Trunk Railways at " the Diamond Crossing, to continue the track immediately north of and adjoining the '* northerly track of the Grand Trunk Railway, from the Diamond Crossing eastwards to " Brock Street, as shewn on the plan. 9. " If you decide, therefore, to give the Credit Valley Railway Company the right " to use a portion of the 100 feet and ' Railway Reserve,' 1 trust that you will not? be " unmindful of the claims of this company, particularly as having been, and being ali-eady, •' one of the occupants of the Said land, but grant to it a similar privilege. 10. "I ventui-e further to ask, on behalf of the Toronto, Gi'ey 'and Bruce Railway " Company, that in determining the location of the Credit Valley Railway it may be kept ** south of the contemplated line of the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway west of the " Diamond Crossing, so as to avoid crossing that line of rails when laid, and that whon 21 " croasing througli the • Ilailway Reserve,' between Bathurst and Bi*ock Sti-eetn, that *' jwrtion of the land now characterized l»y the Northern Railway C/oinpany au ' waste " land' may be left intact for the proposed rails of the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Rail- " way Company. "I have the honor to be. Sir, " Your ol>edient servant, "(Signed) "EDMUND WRAGGK." Hon. Mr. AlKINS — Perhaps Mr. Shaidy would state to the Committee what weit? the views taken by the Engineei-s i-epresenting the various roads. Did they object to your proposition 1 Mr. SHANLY — I did not undei-stand from any of the Gi-and Trunk representa- tives there that they objected to my plan between Bathui-st and Queen Streets. Mr. CASSELS — I wish it to l>e understood that the ojtinions they may have expressed were without prejudice to the Gmnd Trunk. Mr. 8HANLY — I understand that ; 1 did not undei-stand from Mr. Cassels or Mr. Hannaford that they objected to an independent track from Queen to Bathurst Streets, but from Bathurst to Brock Street they strongly urged, as I have mentioned in my i*eport, that the Credit Valley Company should run upon their second track, a double track which they have lately laid down. The Great Western would be in exactly the same position that they hold now, with the exception of the crossing at Brock Street. Of course they do not object. They prefer that crossing to one further west. It appeared to me th9,t the only thing that the Northern Company objected to was the pro- position to take 15 feet otF their strip between Baihui-st and Brock, but T believe they are perfectly satisfied with that now. Hon. Mr. POPE — What objection do yo.i see to their running on the Grand Trunk line l Mr. SHANLY — I have mentioned that. Simply for passenger traffic 1 think there would be no objection at all, but for freiglit traffic, I think they want to reaoh the water, and the block would increase the liability to danger and delay. Hon. Mr. O'CONNOR — Are the two roads the same gauge '( Mr. SHANLY— They are. Mr. HANNAFORD— I may, perhaps, be allowed to say, as Engineer of the Grand Trunk Railway, that our meeting in Mr. Cassels' office was purely informal. I gave my opinion merely as an engineer, and divested myself of the idea that I was the Engineer of the Grand Trunk Railway. Mr. Shanly asked how I would propose to give the Credit Valley an independent line to Bathurst Street. I gave my opinion to Mr. Shanly, but not with the undei-standing, .is mentioned by him. that the Grand Trunk Railway Com- 22 pany liarl no ohjectionH to his carrying the track on their right of way from Qu<»en Street. I merely wish to put this i-ight for the benefit of my company. L agreed with Mr. Shanly as an engineer and not as a representative of the Gran*' "mnk Railway Company. Now, with regarl to Mr. Shanly's plans, I shall refer first t,j No. 1. , Hon. Mr, MACDOUOALL — Is Mr. Hannaford speaking now for the Grand Trunk or merely as an engineer ? Mr. HANNAFORD — Both. No. i showp you how you can get a separate lino for the Credit Valley Railway inside the 100 feet right of way — by pushing t'\e Grand Trunk track north twelve feet at Bathurst Street and about the same extent at Brock Street. He does not go into all the details and facts. He does not say that every single switch at Brock Street would be affected. Then, he carries you over some eight or ten tracks. Even admitting that some of them were put in recently, thay are all on our own land. Mr. Shanly omits the fact that this line would cross the main track of the Northern Railway. Mr. SHANLY — 1 mentioned that distinctly. Mr. HANNAFOllJ) — That involves very great danger. In 18()r) we came to au issue ujwn that very point. The Act of 1865 demonstrates that the Parliament of Canada were perfectly alive to the very great danger that it would have involved to the public if such a crossing wore allowed, and now Mr. Shanly proposes the very same crossing. That is only tor a single line, but in plan No. 2 Mr. Shanly proposes a double track for the Credit Valley Railway. Mr. SHANLY — Not at all. 1 have rtyectod that plan most distinctly. J do not r('Commend it on any ground. Mr. HANNAFORD — In your scheme No. 2 which you reject, you take a double track. Now why should you do that 1 Mr. SHANLY — I did not propose it ; the Ci'edit Valley Company proposed it. 1 say distinctly that I throw it to one side ; I do not consider it at all. Mr. HANNAFORD — But I want you to consider it. If you will let the Grand Trunk and the Great Western alone, practically as they are, you will see that if a single track is required for the Credit Valley Railroad, there is ample room on the line of the Northern Railway fence, between Bathurst and Brock Streets. I do not say what you will do after you get to Brock Street, but if you come to a single line in No. 2 you have plenty of room. Mr. SHANLY — Ev«n a single line going through the ^ates of the Northern ground Would obstruct the enti'ance. Mr. HANNAFORD — I think it would not. If you will examine my plans you will find it almost identical with your own. I would mention that the proposed space between the tracks is eight feet. That may do in the United States, and I admit that it is done there, but up to a very recent period they have been content to nxn without the English 23 HOiniphoreH. We do not know what amount of human life the use of those Hignuls in thia country haH saved. Eight feet would not be space enough to allow the use oi those signals. If you put the tracks so close together as that, the drivers would say, in case of accidents that they sujjposed the signals were on other lines. That is the reason why the tracks are put, as is shown on this plan, ten and a half feet apart. Mr. Shanly pro|)OHes to reduce this to eight feet. It is just a ((uestion to consider whether you can run without signals or not. If you can, eight feet will do ; if not, it is not enough space. Outside of the city eight feet would answer, but inside the city, where people are always on the move, ample B{)uce should be given for the protection of the public. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — As I understand it, the difficulties that you speak of would occur between Bathurst and Brock Streets. What would be the difficulty between Queen aad Bathurst Sti-eets 1 You have not touched that. ' Mr. HANNAFORD — There is no diffiiiulty. A separate line coutd l)e got outside the 100 feet right of way. Hon. Mr. WELLS— What is the difficulty inside the 100 feet ? Mr. HANNAFORD— The difficulty is that every part of that land will be and ought to be used by the Railway Compiiuies there now. Hon. Mr. WELLS — Do you want more than a double track ( Mr. HANNAFORD— We do. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — You have done with a single trrck until now. Mr. HANNAFORD — Yes, but traffic has increased. The? tonnage on the Crand Trunk is 3,000,000 tons over a given i)oint. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — How much has it increased within the last two years ? Mr. HANNAFORD — It has increased 20 par cent., and within the last ten yeai-s it has increased over 50 per cent. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL— At that point of your line ? Mr. HANNAFORD— Yes. Hon. Mr. WELLS — Then you think that two tracks will not be enough i Mr. HANNAFORD — No, because we want sidings. From Queen Street to Brock Street is two miles, and you require, in addition to double tracks, sidings to cross trains. As Mr. Stiff said at the last meeting, when passenger traffic is large, such as at exhibi- tions, we cannot accon)modate it for want of sidings. We found last time that we could not take care of the passengers because it is not safe to unload them from the main line. You must have sidings. 24 Hon. Mr. WELLS — You were going to say something abojit the feasibility of taking a strip from the Northern. Mr. HANNAFORD — No, I propose to leave the tracks as they are to-day, Mr. WRAGGE — The position of the Toronto, Grey & Bruce Company is this : since the year 1870 they have been ninning by means of a third rail over the line of the Grand Trunk Railway from Queen Street through to Brock Street. Their lease expires on the 1st of July 1880, and some fresh arrangement has then to be made to give them access into the city, either by a continuation of the present arrangement or by some independent line of rails. We claim that the Grand Trunk Comi)any are the owners of all that part of the 100 feet lying south of their line west of what is known as the Diamond Crossing, and between that and Queen Street. Thus they have a right to grant us a lease for an independent line, just as they have a right to grant us a lease for a third rail on their line, and if they also have a right, as we believe they have, to the piece of ground lying to the north of their track between the Diamond Ciossing and Brock Street, then they have a right to make a lease for an independent line down to Brock Street on the north side of their track. That is the proposition I presented to the Minister of the Interior with regard to the Toronto, Grey & Bruce. The Credit Valley Company show on their plan that there is room for a double track between Queen Street and the Dia- mond Crossing, but if the Grand Trunk Company lay another track we can come down the way we come now and not cross there at all, the Grand Trunk using the new track for one of their lines. Between Bathurst and Brock Streets, Mr. Shanly's plan gives up the land, which we want to take, to the Credit Valley and moves over the Grand Trunk rail to that part of the land. Mr. SHANLY — I was reporting on a proposition of the Ci'edit Vall<»y C/om)>auy, Mr. WRAGGE — But you have left us no space at all. Mr. SHANI (Y— You could go north of the Northern. Mr. CASSEL3 — Is not the first crossing over the Toronto, Grey & Brucei « Mr. WRAGGE — We claim that there is no jurisdiction here at all over that. Mr. CASSELS— Then the very first crossing this Committee has no jurisdiction over. Mr. WRAGGE— We have no difficulty with the Credit Valley at the Queen Street crossing, We only say that as a matter of form it must be approved of by the Local Government. Hon, Mr. MACDOUGALL — Do the Committee care to make any further examin- ation of witnesses or obtain any further evidence in the matter ? If we knew of any doubts in the minds of the Committee that we could supply evidence upon, we would gladly do it, but if they are sufficiently informed, I would ask on behalf of the Credit Valley that Mr. Shanly's rejwrt be accepted and confirmed. We agree to accept his plan as far as Bathurst Street, I think Mr. Wells will concur with me that as the Committee is now 26 constituted, in the absence of the Minister of the Interior, they would not be able to give us a license of occupation over the Ordnance land, and that they will have to deal with it as members of the Privy Council on the report of the Minister of the Inte- rior. I hope we have made our case sufficiently plain to justify us in asking the members of the Committee in that other character to support our application, but in the meantime it seems to me all that can be properly done to-day by the Railway Committee is to approve or disapprove or modify the report made by Mr. Shanly. I believe I am connect in saying that it suits our purpose ; as applicants, we are willing to accept it. Mr. CAMERON — Are you satisfied with our suggestions t Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — No ; those are matters upon which, if we are in a position to discuss them now with the view of their being embodied in an order of the Committee, I should like to hear the opinion of our engineer. Mr. CAMERON — As to payment or as to sidings 1 * Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — As to payment, I suppose that will have to be left to the arbitrament of somebody, perhaps Mr. Shanly. That is a matter easily arranged between the companies. Of coui-se we do not admit that you are entitled to anything for the freehold or fee. Mr. CAMERON — No. All we ask is a proportionate amount of the expenditure. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — The terms can be easily agreed upon. If your demands are reasonable and fair we do not ask to be relieved Irom that obligation. Then as to sidings. If you are to have the privilege of making sidings, whether you go outside the hundred feet or not, why should the Credit Valley be inhibited ? If it be necessary for your traffic that you should have sidings between Queen and Bathurst Streets, which I understand is a pretty steep grade (and sidings there may be difficult to maintain), it would not be wise for the Credit Valley Railway Company to preclude itself from making sidings there also. I do not know why we should stipulate, or the Government should bind us, to run over that whole distance on our track any more than it has bound you. Mr. BOULTON— It is our property. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — That is the very matter in dispute. What 1 object to is that the Committee should, on the mere suggestion of the Northern Railway Company, bind us not to do a thing in the future which it may be very important to us and to the public, to have the privilege of doing, and which may not be any disadvantage to them. If you wish to secure a monopoly of sidings for that distance, I object on behalf of the Credit Valley Railway Company to be bound to aid you in that way. I ur right to cross over that and. The only thing they can do is to approve a scheme of railway crossings ; they' have nothing to do with the title, therefore we limit our application to the approval of Mr. Shanlj's plan. We have made our application for the land to the Department of the Interior, and when that Department moves in the matter we shall ask for an Order-in-Council conveying to us right of way from Queen to Bathurst Street. We do not ask the Committee to do any- thing they cannot legally give effect to. Hon. Mr. POPE— What has the Great Western Company to say ? Dr. McMICHAEL— On behalf of the Gi-eat Western Railway Comi>any, I may say that there is no objection as far as Brock Street— that is to plan No. 1. Mr. CASSELS — The Grand Trunk Company's objection, so far as th» Railway Committee is concerned, is that they are not seized of jurisdiction in the matter, and, therefore, it is needless to diseuss it. Hon. Mr, MACDOUGALL— They are seized of jurisdictioa as to crossings. Mr. CASSELS— They are not seized of jurisdiction so far as th^ land is concerned at all ; that rests with the Minister of the Interior. The very first crossing is the Toronto, Grey & Bnice line. Thoy are not soiited of jurisdiction in that case. We object to their 28 dealing with it for the palpable reason that the Toronto, Urey & Bnice Railway Coui- pany is incorporated by a local act. It is a local railway, and it is for the Railway Committee of the Local Government, or the Minister of Public Works for Ontario to approve of that first crossing. Hon. Mr. WELLS— We concede all that. Mr. CASSELS — They try to bring this matter here as if it were one scheme. Now, the crossings are all east of Brock Street. I say that under the Railway Act there is no jurisdiction, because you have to fyle your plan and book of reference, and then you can come to the Railway Committee and say : ** We have fyled our plan and book of reference, and we ask you to approve of the crossings." We own the proi)erty east of Brock Street, and will use that property as we like until such time as the Credit Val- ley Railway Company are in a position to come to the Railway Committee and ask for crossings, and then they must take that property as we leave it at the time tney make the application. Hon. Mr. WELLS — We have made our application. Mr. CASSELS — You have not fyled a book of reference. • Ijn. Mr. WELLS — I beg my learned friend's pardon, we have. TT Mr. CASSELS — They have to fyle their plan and book of reference and they have to give notice to treat under the statute and they have to get up to the point of intersection before they can ask for a crossing. Aftf they get to that point on our round house lot they can come here and ask for crossings, but until that time it would be premature to hear their application. They never will get there. Thej- have no power under the local acts to take our land. The Local Legislature has no right to confer that power upon them. Hon. Mr. WELLS — It has been specially held inre Buffalo & Lake Huron Railway Company and the Great Western Railway Company, 14 Queen's Bench, that they have that power. Mr. CASSELS — I contend that you cannot get by local legislation the power to take the lands of the Grand Trunk Railway Compan}' east of Brock Street. Hon. Mr. POPE — The Committee are desirous to have you confine yourselves simply to the objections of the Grand Tnmk Railway Companj'. Mr. CASSELS — I have a plan by which I projwse to show that tho lie of the land is en tirely different from what Mr. Shanly has put it. There are some tracks there now that are not shown in his plan at all. Ma, SHANLY — 1 do not think that you or Mr. Hannaford should try to mislead people by saying that I have not reported upon certain tracks, because they were not there when my report was made. In the night even, there were tracks laid down there while 1 was writing my report. They could only have been laid down to embarrass souieltody. 20 Mr. C ASSE LS — If these gentlemen get permission to cross, the fii-st track they come to is not laid down on Mr, Shanly's map. It is no answer to say that we put that t ack there to intercept anybody. A man has a right to use his property as he chooses. Mr. SHANLY — Any number of tmcks laid down there would not interfere with this tmck wliieh I have mapped out. The line I propose will not interfere with the general traffic of the Grand Trunk Railway. Mr. CASSELS — The second objection is as to jurisdiction. Without any disrespect to this tribunal, I contend that they have no jurisdiction east of Brock Street. It is con- ceded that we own the land. It is patented to us. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL— Other parties have patents for their lands, yet we exercise the right to pass through them, and this Committee exercise the right to approve plans of crossing railway lines and lands. Mr. CASSELS — Our objectioHS outside of this are that it rests entirely with th« ]\Iimster of the Interior whether they will get the right to that strip of land or not. Hon. Mr. AIKINS' — Admitting that they went inside the himdred feet, what are your objections ? Mr. CASSELS — The first objection is that there is no jurisdiction here as to crossing the track of the Toronto, Gi-ey & Bruce Railway. That rests with the Local Government. Hon. Mr. AIKINS— In case it is decided that the Dominion Government has the fee to that land, and we say to the Credit Valley Railway, •* We give you a piece of that land to Bathurst Street," don't you admif that they could' get a crossing? Mr. CASSELS— Yes. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — Is there any material objection to their going inside of that hundred feet? Mr. CASSELS — It is all very well to come here and say " Look at the business of Toronto now," but Mr. Hannaford has shown that the business at that point has very largely increased of late years. You have to look ahead and see what the position of Toronto will be in the future. It is manifest to the commonest intellect that two tracks will be entirely insufficient to accommodate th^ traffic of the Grand Trunk Railway in the future. We requii-e all our land. If the Credit Valley Railway Company want right of way there is land to the south, and they can leave us whore we are, and allow us to keep sufficient space to accommodate future traffic. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — You argue on the assumption that this property belongs to jou 1 Mr. CASSELS — I argue on the assumption that whether it belongs to us or to the Crown we will never let the Credit Valley Railway Company get to Bathurst Street without some compensation. From an engineering point of ^ iew, with regard to the section between Queen and Bathurst Streets, there is no difficulty if they get within the hundred 30 feet. E'ast of that, of eoui'Ke, there are all kinds of ditiioulties wliioh Mr. Hannaford can explain if the Committee wish to go into it. Hon. Mr. O'CONNOR — The Grand Trunk Company do not claim exclusive jurisdic- tion west of Bathurst Street ? Mr. CA8SELS — Yes they do. You will understand their title in a moment by raforence to the pamphlet. The Northern Railway Company fenced in that 100 faet. They applied for it to the Ordnance Department. The application was considered and adjudicated upon and an order was made by the Ordnance Board sanctioning their occupation. Hon. Mr. WELLS— No. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — Is it necessary to go over that question again ? Hon. Mr. O'CONNOR — What part do you claim under the patent you speak of 1 Mr. CASSELS — What we call the round-house block. The Grand Trunk Company paid $35,000 for it to the city. They have erected their round-house and other building! there. The Credit Valley cannot get right of way there. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL— That is not asked for. Hon. Mr. POPE — I have noted the position taken by each Company. First, I find that the Credit Valley and the Northern accept Mr. Shanly's plan. Next, the Great Western agree to it down to Brock Street. Then the Grand Trunk say that a great many tracks have been laid down lately that are not reported upon. They also contend that the first crossing being the Toronto, Grey & Binice track, the jurisdiction rests with the Local Government. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — Does Mr. Cassels speak on behalf of that Railway Company ? Mr. CASSELS-*- Yes, we lease the ground to them up to Bathurat Street. Hon. Mr. WELLS — We have arranged with the Toronto, Grey & Bruce Company unless you choose to repudiate that agreement. Mr. CASSELS — We do not want to repudiate anything. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — As to the question of jurisdiction, I think a word should be said fix>m our point of view. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — Do you refer to the jurisdiction of the Local Government? Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL —Yes. Mr. Cassels asserts that the Privy Council of the Dominion have no authority to confirm the application for crossing railways which are local. If necessary, we shall apply to the Executive Council of Ontario ; but, while it seems to roe a little absurd to raise coT)!»titutional questions before thin Committee, I 31 have no hesitation myself in expressing this opinion,— the Dominion Parliament and Government have authority over all railways. Anything that answers the description of a "railway is under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Pariiament. That the local legislatures have assumed the right to charter local railways is true, and as far as I know, that right has not been contested in any competent court. More- over^ the right of local legislatures to incorporate Railway Companies has been recognized by Pariiament, and would, if any question should arise, be confirmed by positive enact- ment. But that does not take away the right, or power, or jurisdiction of the Federal authorities over " railways," local or inter-provincial, wken they choose to interfere By the Consolidated Railway Act of last session, this power of dealing with crossings in the case of railways, constructed under provincial charters, is expressly conferred upon this Committee. I need hardly remind members of Pariiament, though the learned counsel seems to have overlooked it, that the Dominion Parliament has juris- diction over all railways by an express clause in the Confederation Act. We are wUling to take the Committee's approval of ourplan of crossing for what it is worth There are crossings admittedly within the jui-isdiction of this Committee, and so far at any rate, the Order-in-CouncU, if it be passed, will be operative. With regard to the number of tracks laid down, I confess I am a little surprised that the representatives of the Grand Trunk should come here and interpose obj(3ctions to Mr. Shanly's plan when It is admitted that since the case was laid before the Government, that Company has aMumed the right to lay down any number of tracks they please for the mere pur- pose of embarrassment. They are not lines, or branches, or sidings. I looked at them the day before yesterday. They are simply iies laid upon the ground with old rails spiked upon them. They run nowhere, yet the intersections of these are called crossings and the objection is raised that they are not sh >wn on Mr. Shanlv's plan, although they have been laid down since it v drawn ! I take it the Committee will not listen to that objection. Hon. Mr. O'CONNOR— They contend that you have come into court im properly. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL— They have failed to prove it. Hon. Mr. POPE— How would it affect your company if the Local Legislature had no right to charter railway companies ? Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL-vWhen that question is raised the Dominion Parlia- ament will, no doubt, confirm all charters granted by Local Legislatures, but my con- tention IS that you have jurisdiction over all railways in the Dominion in reference to crossmgs. Hon. Mr. WELLS— Mr. Wragge, on behalf of the Toronto. Grey & Bruce Companv has arranged this crossing with the Credit Valley Company. Mr. WRAGGE^There is no written agreement. Hon. Mr. WELLS— There has been a verbal agreement. Mr. WRAGGE— There Was a sort of understanding, but nothing definite has been arranged. o o 32 Hon. Mr. POPE — What about the plan and the hook of reference. Hon. Mr. WELLS, — The plan was fyled on the 17th of June ; the book of reference was fvled at the same time. Mr. CAMERON — Until the month is up you have no right to take any action. Mr. BEATTY — It Mr. Macdougall's view, that the Local Legislatures have no power, under the Confederation A^t, to charter a Railwar Company be correct, he has ciit the gi'ound under his own feet. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL— Why? Mr. BEATTY — Because you have no corporate existence. I should l)e very sony indeed if that were the case. If Mr. Macdougall's view is taken he has no right to be here at all. Mr. CAMERON— Nor have you. Mr. BEATTY — Of course not; but I do not agree with him. Hon. Mr. POPE — Mr. Hannaford made an objection to Mr. Shanly's plan ; what is it? Mr. HANNAFORD— Mr. Slianly wishes to move us 12 feet. Hon. Mr. POPE — And you object to being moved ] Mr. HANNAFORD — Yes; and we further object to 8 feet between the tracks instead of 10j|r feet, the space we have at present. Now, with regard to Mr. Shanly's plan, I know he is honest in what he says, but his plan is incorrect. There are sidings which were in existence when he made his plan that do not appear on it. Mr. SHANLY — I went over every one of those lines myself, and there is only one short siding which has been omitted. Mr. HANNAFORD — I am glad that you make that admission. Two years ago I received the order from our- General Manager to put down the sidings which have been laid recently. Hon. Mr. AIKENS — Is the Committee to understand that all the objections which can be urged have been stated in reference to the alignment or report of Mr. Shanly 1 Be- cause it is useless to spend any more time here if all the objections have been stated. Mr. HANNAFORD — The Grand Trunk desire to say that the objections are in- surmountable. • ■v ' ■■•'■ \' ' ' ■ ■■ ■■ - • • Mr. BOULTON — I wish the Committee to understand that the assent of the Northern Railway Company is given to the whole of the location as shown on Mr. 33 Shanly's plan, but we withdraw our assent if it is only to be dealt with as far as Bathurst Street. They must take Mr. Shanly's report entirely or not at all. Dr. McMICHAEL — There is only one crossing that the Great Western have any- thing to do with, and we concede that crossing. The exact point has not been agreed upon ; it is simply conceded that a crossing can be mede at that point. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — Then the Committee are not required to pronounce upon it ? Dr. McMICHAEL— No. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — If there are no further objections, the Committee will take the matter into consideration and make a deliverance at an early day. If there are any further objections they can be submitted in vmting. Hon. Mr. MACDOUGALL — I think it would hardly be fair or expedient to allow fresh objections to be made without communicating them to us. Hon. Mr. AIKINS — The Committee will judge of their importance and give you an opportunity to answer them. The subject has been preWy well exhausted. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. ERRATUM. At page 28 of the pamphlet • -ntaining the i-eport of the Railway Delegation's first interview with the Railway Committee, in Mr. Hector Cameron's speech, Mr. Laidlaw is mentioned as one of the Credit Valley Railway deputation who met the Northern Rail- way Board on the 19th of April. Mr. Laidlaw writes to us to say that he was not at that meeting, and desires us to make this correction. ^ A. & G. C. HOLLAND, Reporters, .* ,' » ■ • • »..♦• 1 .•.••...•,»• :"..**;. •*,.. • . ::. <*^ - ••- ..♦..••'' J., .:•••;• • • •« ••••• • ,'• • •• •* I' «